Houses

[Subversive Pessimist]

I have a few questions regarding houses and housing.

Who would create them? I know this may seem obvious, but I would believe it would be much different in a communist or anarchist society. Would it be themselves, if so, I guess the houses would be in poorly condition, and if they ordered someone specialized to do it, they would maybe build several houses, and exploit the other workers?
How many houses can one person have? Should they be allowed a hut (rectrational needs)?

[Tchuncly]

one house allowed, of course...can you become 2 to live in 2 houses at the same time?
and the constructors, it'd be good if it was an engeneer or architect..

[Subversive Pessimist]

What if they wish a completely new house, different looks etc.? Would they be allowed to order a new one?

[Tchuncly]

of course not, there is no ORDERING OF PRODUCTS in socialism (or at least shoudn&#39;t have <_< )
the State provides you house, food, clothes and everything else...

hm...what do you mean by different looks?

[Subversive Pessimist]

For instance, one might want a house instead of an apartment, while one guy wants an apartment instead of a house (YES, some people are that picky). Maybe they don&#39;t like this and that about the hosue.
My personal opinion though: Fuck them&#33; :lol:

How is a state going to provide food, clothing etc.? What if there is not a state?

[Tchuncly]

everyone would work for the state, so the food that you produce goes to the state and it distributes to everyone else...
the clothes that you buy in a store nowadays wouldn&#39;t go to the store, they&#39;d go to the state, and it&#39;d give it to everyone...


What if there is not a state?

that would be after years and years of a socialist state...so it&#39;s suposed that people will have learned how to distribute things equally, without greed, etc..


For instance, one might want a house instead of an apartment, while one guy wants an apartment instead of a house.

yes this would be a problem because it would be a kind of unequallity...i don&#39;t know :P

[Subversive Pessimist]

everyone would work for the state, so the food that you produce goes to the state and it distributes to everyone else...
the clothes that you buy in a store nowadays wouldn&#39;t go to the store, they&#39;d go to the state, and it&#39;d give it to everyone...

They&#39;d go to the state? Where&#39;s the state? White house? Reichstag? Just to point it a little radical, so you get my point: Is the food going to the white house, and then back to the stores?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:00 PM
Who would create them? I know this may seem obvious, but I would believe it would be much different in a communist or anarchist society.
Communism is anarchism.

It would be up to the community. If more houses were necessary then the community assembly would discuss it and come to an agreement. Maybe they agree to set up a housing commission to deal with the creation of house, who knows.


Would it be themselves, if so, I guess the houses would be in poorly condition, and if they ordered someone specialized to do it, they would maybe build several houses, and exploit the other workers?

That is perfectly acceptable. If someone wanted to build there own house, I see nothing wrong with that. However, they wouldn&#39;t be able to employ other people.

Also, why would someone build 2 or 3 houses. It is unnecessary.


How many houses can one person have? )

People only need one house. Maybe it may vary in size, but the general need is one. People therefore would have one, because that is all you need.


For instance, one might want a house instead of an apartment, while one guy wants an apartment instead of a house

We are talking about a new society here. The desire will be to make society work. If someone wanted to have a 3 bedroom house over a family of 5 while they had to have a 1 bedroom appartment, then that isnt acceptable. If you apply logic to that situation it comes out that the single person should have the appartment and the family should have the house. That is how it would work I imagine. If the person objects, of course that is there right, but they would have to object within the community, and they will probably loose.

Society will be divided based on need, not desire. Some people may think that this was wrong because desire is a natural thing. Well, it isnt. Desire is a concept developed from material conditions. An individuals desire has not superirority over other peoples necessities.


How is a state going to provide food, clothing etc.? What if there is not a state?

When the state is removed the means of production will be collectivised and organized based again on necessity. Clothes are a necessity, so society must organize those means of production so that people were provided for when they needed it, clothes and shoes.

Maybe there is a whole group of people who produce hundreds of different kinds of clothes because they like too. Maybe they create a network of people who like to make clothes all around the world who supply communes with free clothing and shoes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:33 PM
everyone would work for the state
What makes you so sure that the workers will maintain the state after a revolution? What makes you so certain they wont smash it all together?


so the food that you produce goes to the state and it distributes to everyone else...

Why can&#39;t production be collectivised into the hands of federated workers councils and networks to distribute it according to necessity?


the clothes that you buy in a store nowadays wouldn&#39;t go to the store, they&#39;d go to the state, and it&#39;d give it to everyone..

The state is our biggest enemy. Why would we want to maintain it?


that would be after years and years of a socialist state...so it&#39;s suposed that people will have learned how to distribute things equally, without greed, etc..

The state won&#39;t just disappear into thin air though. How can it just mysteriously disappear? It can&#39;t. In order for it to exist it has to perpetuate itself, making it bigger and bigger. How then can it disappear, or wither away as Marx put it?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 09:37 PM

everyone would work for the state, so the food that you produce goes to the state and it distributes to everyone else...
the clothes that you buy in a store nowadays wouldn&#39;t go to the store, they&#39;d go to the state, and it&#39;d give it to everyone...

They&#39;d go to the state? Where&#39;s the state? White house? Reichstag? Just to point it a little radical, so you get my point: Is the food going to the white house, and then back to the stores?
The state would control central distribution centres which would co-ordiante other national food centres. It would be very much like the way capitalists do it now, but only this time it is in control of the government instead of a person or a group of people for the purpose of profit.

[Tchuncly]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 14 2004, 07:49 PM
Why can&#39;t production be collectivised into the hands of federated workers councils and networks to distribute it according to necessity?
this is the state as Marx idealized, and the one I&#39;m talking about

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Tchuncly+May 14 2004, 10:09 PM--> (Tchuncly @ May 14 2004, 10:09 PM)
The Anarchist [email protected] 14 2004, 07:49 PM
Why can&#39;t production be collectivised into the hands of federated workers councils and networks to distribute it according to necessity?
this is the state as Marx idealized, and the one I&#39;m talking about [/b]
A very odd conception of a state.

The state is not a federation of workers councils. It is a centralisedg roup of institutions used to perpetrate the control of a ruling elite.

[elijahcraig]

This thread is horribly ridiculous.

[Valkyrie]

I love this thread.

In my anarchist society. Everyone would be entitled a house and an acre or two, the land all divided equally. Lots of green space in the new society. Because a lot of the old cappie buildings and malls will be demolished.

I think everyone should be entitled a specific equal allotment of building materials and they could pick whatever building plan they so ever desire, as long as it fits within the budget of materials.

The houses will be built like Habitat for Humanity. The community will help out and help build their own houses.

[Tchuncly]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 14 2004, 08:41 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 14 2004, 08:41 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 10:09 PM

The Anarchist [email protected] 14 2004, 07:49 PM
Why can&#39;t production be collectivised into the hands of federated workers councils and networks to distribute it according to necessity?
this is the state as Marx idealized, and the one I&#39;m talking about
A very odd conception of a state.

The state is not a federation of workers councils. It is a centralisedg roup of institutions used to perpetrate the control of a ruling elite. [/b]
when Marx said things about the dictatorship of the proletariat he didn&#39;t mean simply a government of one man that does things in favor of the masses...he meant a government where the power would not be with One single man, but in Unions, or if you prefer, workers councils...

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 02:49 AM
when Marx said things about the dictatorship of the proletariat he didn&#39;t mean simply a government of one man that does things in favor of the masses...
Nobody really knows what he meant.


he meant a government where the power would not be with One single man, but in Unions, or if you prefer, workers councils...

That wasn&#39;t Lenin inteperated what he said. Lenin certainly meant it to mean one single man, to control, centrally and with discipline the insitutions of a state and use them as a tool to keep political power for the vangaurd.

[Tchuncly]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 15 2004, 07:21 AM
That wasn&#39;t Lenin inteperated what he said. Lenin certainly meant it to mean one single man, to control, centrally and with discipline the insitutions of a state and use them as a tool to keep political power for the vangaurd.
that&#39;s why the USSR had never been (100%) a socialist state, and neither has Cuba or China...

[elijahcraig]

Lenin certainly meant it to mean one single man, to control, centrally and with discipline the insitutions of a state and use them as a tool to keep political power for the vangaurd.

Do you have a quote to prove your assertion that Lenin "meant" this?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 02:39 PM

Lenin certainly meant it to mean one single man, to control, centrally and with discipline the insitutions of a state and use them as a tool to keep political power for the vangaurd.

Do you have a quote to prove your assertion that Lenin "meant" this?
All you have to do is study the history of the russian revolution and the direct period after it to see exactly what Lenins intentions were...

...From &#39;State and Revolution.&#39;


the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class

[elijahcraig]

All you have to do is study the history of the russian revolution and the direct period after it to see exactly what Lenins intentions were...

But no "one man" ever had "central" control over everything, it was a complex government which extended from centralized control, but there was no "dictatorship" which was grandly invisioned by Lenin from early days on.


...From &#39;State and Revolution.&#39;

QUOTE
the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class

Yes, that is the WORKERS in control of society. That&#39;s not "one man" controlling the place as you said Lenin had said. Either prove your statement or admit that you&#39;re merely theorizing based on your ideology&#39;s common assumptions.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 01:12 PM


Yes, that is the WORKERS in control of society. That&#39;s not "one man" controlling the place as you said Lenin had said.
i wonder what happens if some people doesn&#39;t work(or doesn&#39;t want to cooperate).they will have to be chase away ,but because that&#39;s what they want you&#39;ll just have to exterminate then(or reabilate them) humm....
look like faschisme to me ( never read animal farm?)....never beeing chase because you are different.......? it could happen to all of us.

[elijahcraig]

^What?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:11 PM
What if they wish a completely new house, different looks etc.? Would they be allowed to order a new one?
They dont be ordering it like a catalog or nothing, it is just made sure of you have a home. In my belief ( and if you disagree you know what to do&#33; :D ) if you want it coustomized then decorate it yourself&#33; How cool is that, every one has a home to decorate.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:23 PM
For instance, one might want a house instead of an apartment, while one guy wants an apartment instead of a house (YES, some people are that picky). Maybe they don&#39;t like this and that about the hosue.
My personal opinion though: Fuck them&#33; :lol:

How is a state going to provide food, clothing etc.? What if there is not a state?
I think housing should be distributed accroding to what is convienient. Where do you work? Thats the area you should live in....it saves recources and is more convienient.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+May 14 2004, 07:44 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ May 14 2004, 07:44 PM)
[email protected] 14 2004, 09:00 PM
Who would create them? I know this may seem obvious, but I would believe it would be much different in a communist or anarchist society.
Communism is anarchism.

It would be up to the community. If more houses were necessary then the community assembly would discuss it and come to an agreement. Maybe they agree to set up a housing commission to deal with the creation of house, who knows.
[/b]
There should be commissions, I think that is a great and sensible idea that there will have to be people who can account for things like that, some people have this illusion we will just automatically do it. Just cause we have reached communism doesnt mean were phsychic&#33;

[Raisa]

Originally posted by gaf+Jun 11 2004, 04:44 PM--> (gaf @ Jun 11 2004, 04:44 PM)
[email protected] 11 2004, 01:12 PM


Yes, that is the WORKERS in control of society. That&#39;s not "one man" controlling the place as you said Lenin had said.
i wonder what happens if some people doesn&#39;t work(or doesn&#39;t want to cooperate) [/b]
Fine. No one said they have to work. Communism isnt about "you have to work"
its about "every one is working together for this" and it would be extremely rude if you decided not to help and then think you are entitled to anything we have worked for. It&#39;s rude and exploitive and there is a very simple concept.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. If you can&#39;t its one thing, but if you dont want to...shame on you&#33;

[gaf]

i lived in a squatt once with a lot of people,from everywhere russia,yougoslavia,france chile,england and holland.we didn&#39;t have this much monney,the one would go food stealling the other one making music inthe street,the other one juggling or spit fire,
anyway we had a communal kitchen and made food for everybody,
only their was this guy .never brought something but alway ready for lunch tjme.till one day he wasnt really happy with our spagetti and went away to the snack bar.fulling his bailey full of shit.i,we were really pissed of,but didn&#39;t want to trow him away,so we went to squat something for him,where he could stay....alone....
and our russian friend was alittle bit lost here too,he couldn&#39;t understand why people in west can not even share a banana...,the only anwser could have been.welcome to hell
brother.....end story.....

[elijahcraig]

What in the hell are you talking about?

:lol:

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:26 AM
What in the hell are you talking about?

:lol:
reality not theory :P

[elijahcraig]

but you said you supported the "chaos theory", dickhead; and it doesn&#39;t even make sense in the context of the thread.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 03:12 PM
But no "one man" ever had "central" control over everything, it was a complex government which extended from centralized control, but there was no "dictatorship" which was grandly invisioned by Lenin from early days on.
I take it back. It wasn&#39;t one man. It was a small group of them.


Yes, that is the WORKERS in control of society

The workers aren&#39;t the vangaurd are they?


Either prove your statement or admit that you&#39;re merely theorizing based on your ideology&#39;s common assumptions.

I am assuming that Lenin had control of the Soviet government :o what a crazy assumption. Even if I am wrong, I don&#39;t think it justifies the actions of this vangaurd. Whether it was him or 8 men on something called an Executive committee what&#39;s really the difference?

[gaf]

..............you got me there. :lol:

[elijahcraig]

The workers aren&#39;t the vangaurd are they?

They are part of the vanguard, and make up the local, state (provincial), and national governments.


I am assuming that Lenin had control of the Soviet government what a crazy assumption. Even if I am wrong, I don&#39;t think it justifies the actions of this vangaurd. Whether it was him or 8 men on something called the Executive committee I don&#39;t think really matters.

What “actions” are you speaking of?



gaf, how old are you?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:57 AM
They are part of the vanguard, and make up the local, state (provincial), and national governments.
According to the Leninist the vangaurd must assert control over the nation during a revolutionary period. How can the vangaurd assert control by handing power out. They can&#39;t, and that&#39;s why the didn&#39;t to any serious degree. Lenin and the Executive Committee with Trotsky at the helm of the Red Army molded and shaped the path of the working class with brute force if necessary. These two men had no problems with adopting bourgeois methods of oppression in the face of disent. As Trotsky said we should condemn those who "put the right of workers to elect their own representatives above the Party, thus challenging the right of the Party to affirm its dictatorship, even when the dictatorship comes into conflict with the passing moods of the workers democracy."


What “actions” are you speaking of?

:o Kronstadt, the oppression of the Makhanoites...

[elijahcraig]

I agree with Trotsky, and Engels who said something like that first about the nature of revolution.

What is a "bourgeois method" of oppression?



I was speaking more about after the revolution had moved into the stage where formation of a new socialist state can occur, not during famine, war, and chaos of revolution at the outset.



I support the putting down of the Anarchists, and Kronstadt as well.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:25 AM
What is a "bourgeois method" of oppression?
Censorship, imprisonment of political prisoners, of counter-revolutionaries I can understand to some degree, but of working class movements? Lenin and Trotsky both dsicussed using chemical weapons against the workers and sailors of Kronstadt.

This is not how you create liberation.

[elijahcraig]

Censorship, imprisonment of political prisoners, of counter-revolutionaries I can understand to some degree, but of working class movements? Lenin and Trotsky both dsicussed using chemical weapons against the workers and sailors of Kronstadt.

This is not how you create liberation.

You do what is necessary, and you do it well.

[gaf]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:57 AM
gaf, how old are you?
37 .and stiill a dreamer and idealist.
and will fight &#39;till my death against ALL forms of oppression,repression and faschism

[elijahcraig]

Right...I&#39;d guess about 11 or 12.

[gaf]

elijahcraig.Do you think arrogance will change the world?
I think what is scary (for you and me)when i was 11,12 i was more like you and really pleased i&#39;m not anymore

[elijahcraig]

No, I think your horrible typing skills will change the world.

When did you turn 13?

[gaf]

Arrogance (Ar"ro*gance) (#), n.
[F., fr. L. arrogantia, fr. arrogans. See Arrogant.]

The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption. "I hate not you for her proud arrogance." Shak.

Synonyms -- Haughtiness; hauteur; assumption; lordliness; presumption; pride; disdain; insolence; conceit; conceitedness. See Haughtiness.

[elijahcraig]

You&#39;re hurting me, o, o,...blodd....bolodladl;df;lasd (as you would say)

[Hate Is Art]

HE IS FRENCH&#33; DONT BE AN ARSE&#33;&#33;

English isn&#39;t his first language so excuse his typing skills, jeezus&#33;

[gaf]

Originally posted by Digital [email protected] 12 2004, 01:51 PM
HE IS FRENCH&#33; DONT BE AN ARSE&#33;&#33;

English isn&#39;t his first language so excuse his typing skills, jeezus&#33;
actually english is my 3rd language since i speak better dutch than english
and thanks .So much asseholes in this world ,it is even a shame they can speak

[Raisa]

Originally posted by gaf+Jun 12 2004, 09:59 AM--> (gaf @ Jun 12 2004, 09:59 AM)
[email protected] 12 2004, 08:57 AM
gaf, how old are you?
37 .and stiill a dreamer and idealist.
and will fight &#39;till my death against ALL forms of oppression,repression and faschism [/b]
Right on man&#33; I apprieciate that a real lot. And congratulations that you know so much english, I understand it is a very hard language.

[elijahcraig]

well, that explains it.

gaf, you could say that so I KNOW why you&#39;re typing like a 3 yr old.

[MiniOswald]

woo ur right raisa, english is a stupid language, unlike others ours doesnt follow proper rules. its just a long line of exceptions.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 07:33 PM
everyone would work for the state, so the food that you produce goes to the state and it distributes to everyone else...
the clothes that you buy in a store nowadays wouldn&#39;t go to the store, they&#39;d go to the state, and it&#39;d give it to everyone...



I think it would be logic that the state would own the shops and the cloths from the factories would go to the state owned shops. You make it sound like the state is merely a warhouse where everything is stored.

[Subversive Pessimist]

gaf,
don&#39;t care about him. He&#39;s just arrogant. I don&#39;t speak French. I don&#39;t speak German (although I understand a little). I don&#39;t think elijahcraig speak French OR German. It doesn&#39;t really matter. Be proud of yourself. You&#39;re a nice guy.

[Agent provocateur]

We should evict the rich and put the poor in these homes.


http://www.nelsongonzalez.com/listings.htm

http://www.estherpercal.com/properties.htm#Homes

http://www.carolynrosenmiller.com/

http://www.uniquehomesofmiami.com

http://www.investinmiami.com/RealEstate/residential.php

[che-Rabbi]

Would you get a bigger house with another bedroom every time you have a child? My friend has 14 brothers and sisters, im sure we would have fun with that issue. :P

[DaCuBaN]

I guess that depends on whether you feel it&#39;s necessary to ablolish the family unit or not ;)

Personally, I don&#39;t think you could - it&#39;s too much of an incentive for those who haven&#39;t yet expunged the "Better than the jones&#39;s" line of thought.

[cubist]

i believe you would have to give them extra beds, at the end of the day each member of the society would be equal and deserves what all others have so if you got 14 kids you get rations for 14 kids, at the end of the day the 14 kids will al leventually end up working for the nation and putting back in what they took,

i don&#39;t think you could dispose of the family unit either i think it would be wrong, family to me is the single most important social aspect, everyone needs to be loved by someone and cared for. The mothers would give birth and not be a mother that would be terrible for them

[Guerrilla22]

Who came up witt the idea of houses? Probaly at some point people got tired of sleeping in caves and decided to upgrade to something with carpeted floors.

[Hate Is Art]

Joe, if Communism is Anarchism why have two different words for it?

:lol: Just tickling your funny bone&#33;

[cubist]

oh DN your so humerous

[DaCuBaN]

i don&#39;t think you could dispose of the family unit either i think it would be wrong, family to me is the single most important social aspect, everyone needs to be loved by someone and cared for

I would indeed try to dispose of the family unit... I&#39;m of the ilk that believes the vast majority of your hangups are instilled from your parents. I certainly know that whilst I was growing up I was constantly chastised for such menial things as swearing. In reality it&#39;s just another word... but now it&#39;s entrenched in my mind.

Child-rearing should be an &#39;industry&#39; like any other, controlled by a soviet, like any other. How else do we expect to expunge &#39;counter-revolutionary&#39; thoughts from the proceeding generations?